Avant-propos - Studia Moralia

THE BASIC GOODS THEORY AND REVISIONISM 201
of the will choosing the act. Genocide, like murder, by definition
contains its very moral condemnation in the term itself. Both
schools would agree that the norm prohibiting genocide is a
moral absolute, yet they would disagree on the appropriate actdescriptions
in other specific moral norms.
In GRISEZ’S quotation cited above on AQUINAS’ use of ARISTO-
TLE, there is some ambiguity in how we are to interpret GRISEZ’S
final sentence. What does GRISEZ mean when he writes: “The really
unique aspects of one’s action make no difference whatsoever
to the morality of what one does”? This question reveals the
third methodological distinction between the BGT and revisionism.
While both schools agree that certain actions are always
wrong (e.g., murder, theft, or adultery), they disagree fundamentally
on the morally relevant circumstances that can determine
whether or not an individual situation corresponds to the
act defined and prohibited by a norm. 94 Much of this debate centers
on the definition of the object and the traditional sources of
morality. 95 Why is it that the unique aspect that a person is becoming
intoxicated in lieu of an anesthetic in preparation for a
painful operation is morally significant to the description of the
act and the application of the norm prohibiting the act (“one
should not drink oneself into a stupor”) 96 whereas the fact that a
married couple is using a condom to prevent the spread of an
STD is not an aspect that justifies redefining the act and the
norm prohibiting that act? 97 Is that not precisely what AQUINAS
94 AQUINAS, S.T., I-II, q. 100, a. 8, ad 3. See MCCORMICK, Critical Calling
150; MAHONEY, Making of Moral Theology 190; and GRISEZ, Christian Moral
Principles 268-69.
95 See BRUNO SCHÜLLER, S.J., “Die Quellen der Moralität: Zur systematischen
Ortung eines alten Lehrstücks der Moraltheologie,” Theologie und
Philosophie 59 (1984) 535-559; JOSEPH SELLING, “Veritatis Splendor and the
Sources of Morality,” Louvain Studies 19 (1994) 3-17; “The Fundamental Polarity
of Moral Discourse,” in TODD SALZMAN, ed., Method and Catholic Moral
Theology: The Ongoing Reconstruction (Omaha, NE: Creighton University
Press, 1999) 21-43, at 26-37; and my Deontology and Teleology: An Investigation
of the Normative Debate in Roman Catholic Moral Theology (Leuven:
Peeters Press, 1995) 267-503.
96 GRISEZ, Christian Moral Principles 258.
97 GRISEZ, Difficult Moral Questions 160; and WILLIAM E. MAY, “AIDS,